Comparison of RT-PCR and antigen test sensitivity across nasopharyngeal, nares, and oropharyngeal swab, and saliva sample types during the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant.

Limited data highlight the need to understand differences in SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) variant viral load between the gold standard nasopharyngeal (NP) swab, mid-turbinate (MT)/anterior nasal swabs, oropharyngeal (OP) swabs, and saliva. MT, OP, and saliva samples from symptomatic individuals in Atlanta, GA, in January 2022 and longitudinal samples from a small familial cohort were tested by both RT-PCR and ultrasensitive antigen assays. Higher concentrations in the nares were observed in the familial cohort, but a dominant sample type was not found among 39 cases in the cross-sectional cohort. The composite of positive MT or OP assay for both RT-PCR and antigen assay trended toward higher diagnostic yield but did not achieve significant difference. Our data did not identify a singular preferred sample type for SARS-CoV-2 testing, but higher levels of saliva nucleocapsid, a trend toward higher yield of composite OP/MT result, and association of apparent MT or OP predominance with symptoms warrant further study.

Where is Omicron? Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and Antigen Test Sensitivity at Commonly Sampled Anatomic Sites Over the Course of Disease.

BACKGROUND: Upper respiratory samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection include the gold standard nasopharyngeal (NP) swab, and mid-turbinate (MT) nasal swabs, oropharyngeal (OP) swabs, and saliva. Following the emergence of the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant, limited preliminary data suggest that OP swabs or saliva samples may be more sensitive than nasal swabs, highlighting the need to understand differences in viral load across different sites. METHODS: MT, OP, and saliva samples were collected from symptomatic individuals presenting for evaluation in Atlanta, GA, in January 2022. Longitudinal samples were collected from a family cohort following COVID-19 exposure to describe detection of viral targets over the course of infection. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 RNA and nucleocapsid antigen measurements demonstrated a nares-predominant phenotype in a familial cohort. A consistent dominant location for SARS-CoV-2 was not found among 54 individuals. Positive percent agreement for virus detection in MT, OP and saliva specimens were 66.7 [54.1-79.2], 82.2 [71.1-93.4], and 72.5 [60.3-84.8] by RT-PCR, respectively, and 46.2 [32.6-59.7], 51.2 [36.2-66.1], and 72.0 [59.6-84.4] by ultrasensitive antigen assay. The composite of positive MT or OP assay was not significantly different than either alone for both RT-PCR and antigen assay (PPA 86.7 [76.7-96.6] and 59.5 [44.7-74.4], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid and RNA exhibited similar kinetics and diagnostic yield in three upper respiratory sample types across the duration of symptomatic disease. Collection of OP or combined nasal and OP samples does not appear to increase sensitivity versus validated nasal sampling for rapid detection of viral antigen.

Multidisciplinary assessment of the Abbott BinaxNOW SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care antigen test in the context of emerging viral variants and self-administration.

While there has been significant progress in the development of rapid COVID-19 diagnostics, as the pandemic unfolds, new challenges have emerged, including whether these technologies can reliably detect the more infectious variants of concern and be viably deployed in non-clinical settings as "self-tests". Multidisciplinary evaluation of the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card (BinaxNOW, a widely used rapid antigen test, included limit of detection, variant detection, test performance across different age-groups, and usability with self/caregiver-administration. While BinaxNOW detected the highly infectious variants, B.1.1.7 (Alpha) first identified in the UK, B.1.351 (Beta) first identified in South Africa, P.1 (Gamma) first identified in Brazil, B.1.617.2 (Delta) first identified in India and B.1.2, a non-VOC, test sensitivity decreased with decreasing viral loads. Moreover, BinaxNOW sensitivity trended lower when devices were performed by patients/caregivers themselves compared to trained clinical staff, despite universally high usability assessments following self/caregiver-administration among different age groups. Overall, these data indicate that while BinaxNOW accurately detects the new viral variants, as rapid COVID-19 tests enter the home, their already lower sensitivities compared to RT-PCR may decrease even more due to user error.